Talk:Grand boowa
Aarex's Coinning: Grand grand boowa = {3,3,2,2 / 2} or {3,2,3,2 / 2} Grand grand grand boowa = {3,4,2,2 / 2} Great boowa, same at grand grand boowa Great great boowa = {3,3,3,2 / 2} Great great great boowa = {3,4,3,2 / 2} Gigantic boowa, same at great great boowa Gigantic gigantic boowa = {3,3,4,2 / 2} Gigantic gigantic gigantic boowa = {3,4,4,2 / 2} Gorge boowa, same at gigantic gigantic boowa. n-ex-gorge boowa = {3,n+1,5,2 / 2} n-ex-gulf boowa = {3,n+1,6,2 / 2} n-ex-gasp boowa = {3,n+1,7,2 / 2} n-ex-ginoring boowa = {3,n+1,8,2 / 2} This all numbers are fake.AarexTiao 23:11, April 13, 2013 (UTC) :Aren't there more mathematically interesting ways of expanding this...? FB100Z • talk • 23:38, April 13, 2013 (UTC) :I know that Aarex is an amateur of these trivial extensions and giving names on that. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ 09:42, April 14, 2013 (UTC) Largest odd number Is grand boowa the largest named number, which has been proven to be odd? -- 14:09, September 19, 2014 (UTC) But it's not well-defined (Bowers' numbers beyond triakulus aren't well-defined). He didn't give a clear way to solve triakulus, let alone grand boowa. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 14:27, September 19, 2014 (UTC) Suppose that grand boowa were well-defined, would this number be the largest named number, which has been proven to be odd? -- 15:39, September 19, 2014 (UTC) i think so. also, to add on to what hyp cos said, there are several different attempts to define bowers' numbers beyond triakulus. there is general consensus on how big many of them are (e.g. kungulus ~ f_zeta(0)(100)), but not on exactly how they're defined. Cookiefonster (talk) 16:48, September 19, 2014 (UTC) grand boowa is not well-defined, and therefore it is neither odd nor even. it also has no "generally accepted magnitude," as CF proposes, without a definition. it's vel 19:13, September 19, 2014 (UTC) :I think the largest number which is proven to be odd is joe pellinger = 203^431,112,937#^^^^########^^^^######>#^#203,431,112,937. Wythagoras (talk) 19:17, September 19, 2014 (UTC) ::the hell? it's vel 19:29, September 19, 2014 (UTC) :::joe pellinger is a thing. (see hexacthulhum Super Regiment) -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 07:29, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::still, what the hell? it's vel 07:30, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::by "generally accepted value" i mean generally accepted approximate value (i.e. in terms of fgh) Cookiefonster (talk) 20:00, September 19, 2014 (UTC) :::you cant approximate a number if its not a number it's vel 20:20, September 19, 2014 (UTC) :::you can informally propose how big it "should" be Cookiefonster (talk) 00:31, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::it "should" be if what? it's vel 07:31, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::::Joe pellinger should be less than f_{\phi(\omega,0,0)}(64) because it's the limit of Sbiis' notation. And he defined it formally anyways. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 16:06, September 20, 2014 (UTC) Just to point out, if this number is well defined, it is smaller than 1. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:12, September 20, 2014 (UTC) why is that Cookiefonster (talk) 15:35, September 20, 2014 (UTC) :False statement implies everything. LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:42, September 20, 2014 (UTC) :I suppose that's true in mathematical logical terms i suppose, but if you ASSUME it is well-defined (ignoring that's false) then that implies easily that it's greater than 1, odd, a power tower/tetra-tower/penta-tower/etc of threes, probably a little past θ(Ω_ω) in the FGH (at least that's the general consensus on the growth rate), etc, etc ::There is no general consensus, there are also people who believe it should be the LVO. Wythagoras (talk) 16:24, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::It's hard to argue what would happen if it was defined. There might exist reasonable formalization of BEAF which puts this number very low in size hierarchy. LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:26, September 20, 2014 (UTC) ::BEAF is ambiguous enough that trying to approximate the magnitudes of its outputs is meaningless it's vel 17:12, September 20, 2014 (UTC)